US Law (local/state/federal) ⚖

96 readers
2 users here now

This is the only decentralized venue for chatter about law in the US. Federal law and law of various states and territories is on topic here.

Loosely related:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
1
 
 

While the court “agreed with our core legal arguments” that Oregon carefully evaluates the needs and proper placement of transgender inmates, “we strongly disagree with the court’s harmful language,” said Jenny Hansson, spokesperson for the state attorney general’s office. “It does not reflect our brief or our values.”

2
 
 

I have to be vague and perhaps this ruins whether answers can be helpful.. but I’ll try anyway.

A VOIP provider in state X violated the laws of that state by disconnecting a customer without warning. Overseas customer complains to state X. State X basically says: the telecom is not just operating locally. Your grievance is in your state; not our problem. You have to contact your own state’s regulator.

Oof. So suppose I moved to Canada. The VOIP provider does not even know I moved (though they might guess from my IP address). How could they be expected to comply with Canadian law? Suppose that’s really true. So then what? I sue them in Canada, then have the Canadian judgement domesticated in state X by a judge in that state?

Shitshow indeed. The VOIP provider operating out of state X probably has at least one customer in state X. Let’s assume that’s true. Would they only have to comply with the laws of state X specifically in the context of state X residents?

3
 
 

I could not find a way to reach the Council of Better Business Bureaus. So I had to dig into what happened to them. It turns out they split in 2019 into two separate orgs:

  • International Association of Better Business Bureaus (IABBB)
  • BBB National Programs

Confusing as fuck because I would naturally expect all the US-based BBB agencies to fall under the “BBB National Programs”. But the opposite is true. AFAICT, there is nothing international about the IABBB.

So what is the BBB National Programs? It is focused on advertising and privacy both. And w.r.t. privacy it has specifically positioned itself as some kind of authority on data movement between the EU and US.

This “BBB National Programs’ Center for Industry Self-Regulation (CISR)” has partners. When I look at the list of partners, it’s a shit-show of shitty corporations like Nestlé. I boycott about half of them. So who is partner in this non-profit effort to protect the privacy of those with EU and US digital footprints, you might ask? Here are some of them:

  • Facebook (I hate to acknowledge the obnoxious “Meta” brand but write it here for searches)
  • Google
  • Verizon
  • JP Morgan Chase (one of the most obnoxious privacy abusing banks in the US)
  • Unilever (the food brand who has joined Bill Gates’ war on cash)
  • T-Mobile (they are a lesser of evils for sure; it’s unclear why they want to be associated with a long list of full-blown evil corps)

Indeed the wolves seem to be in charge of the hen house.

So what is the legal consequence of this org? Are they facilitating some kind of under-handed way to get a seal of approval for GDPR purposes?

4
 
 

Details here. I’m not a JavaScript coder but I suspect the FCC has written malicious code to block people from accessing archive.org. Is this legal? Who oversees the FCC -- Congress, or just the POTUS?

5
 
 

For anyone living in 1 of the 5 hard-right red states, your oppressive gov has decided that you cannot have a standard ID or driver’s license. You must Pay some high fees and go through some extra hoops in order to help the state push a xenophobic agenda.

6
 
 

I have never seen an Attorney General take action on a consumer complaint. The best outcome I’ve seen is they make the complaint public record, then do nothing. Other AGs reply to say “not a violation of deceptive trade practices”. And some AGs do not respond at all - they just ignore complaints. The FTC and CFPB are also options but those are also often deadbeat agencies particularly under republican governance. What’s the recourse? Who generally oversees a state’s AG?

7
 
 

(ignore the above massive preview text if you are using the shitty stock Lemmy client) The bombshell is that Elon exfiltrated the social security records of all Americans and shared it with Cloudflare, DOGE, and an outside advocacy group seeking to overturn election results. The fuckup is not just SSNs (slave surveillance numbers), it’s the whole 9 yards: “DOGE team members were given access to databases containing: * Social Security numbers * medical and mental health records * bank and credit card information * tax details * work histories * and home addresses for millions of Americans.” I suppose getting a new SSN is futile, even if permitted, because all this data is aggregated into the data breach. So change your name, move your residence, new SSN, switch banks... fuck, just leave the country perhaps. (edit) I accidentally updated an older version of my post and lost a paragraph where I conjectured that the databreach was legal since it only violates the 4th Amendment, which the US tends to brush aside as we know from the Snowden revelations. Hence the correction from @ReptilianCleric@lemmy.zip below. Sorry! No version control on Lemmy.

8
 
 

From the linked PDF: > Give the officers my ID? > If the ICE officer demands your ID, only show a driver’s license or another ID issued from the U.S. government. DON’T give the officer any false or foreign documents such as a passport, consular ID, or an expired visa. > In NY, the DRIVER must show any officer a driver’s license. If you are the PASSENGER, you do NOT have to show the officer an ID or give any personal information, including your name, address, or place of birth. This seems off. My understanding: in the US, nationals need not carry ID (while immigrants must carry their docs). Exceptionally, if you are driving a car, then the state requires you to carry your driver’s license. The DL is the property of the state. The fed does not issue driver’s licenses. There is no such thing as a US federal driver’s license. The quote above refers to “ID issued from the U.S. government,” that would be a passport. A passport is not going to be carried daily inside the issuing country. Traffic enforcement is not in the jurisdiction of federal ICE agents, is it? Can they really demand your driver’s license under this kind of false pretense of ensuring that drivers are permitted to drive when in fact the real reason they want to see the DL is to snoop on citizenship? There are some interstate highways that traverse state borders. Does it make a difference whether or not someone is driving on one? And what about cyclists? If you are cycling and happen incidentally to be carrying a driver’s license (which is not needed to cycle), must you produce it on demand? It’s bizarre how that doc singles out New York. How does it differ from other states? ### what the ACLU says The ACLU has some advice: https://www.acluva.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police-or-ice/ This is also a bit imprecise. Of course drivers must show their DL to “police”, but what about ICE? They just leave that up in the air. ### Updated title The first responder erroneously thought this thread was to seek advice. My title was admitedly ambiguous. In !law_us@lemmy.sdf.org, the purpose is chatter about law, not really about order. Should ACLU’s official advice for dealing with ICE agents be “do whatever you want”? Probably not.

9
 
 

The linked thread shows people talking about a US regulation that requires printer makers to produce stegonographic tracker dots on every page printed Can anyone cite the statute? I suspect they are talking nonsense. Everything I have read on the topic mostly conceals the motivation of the printer makers. But my speculative impression is that the US gov secretly requested the feature and the printer makers were happy to accommodate because it leads to selling more yellow inks and toner. Plus it gives them a “good excuse” for blocking color printers from printing black docs when any of the color cartridges are empty. But in any case, it would be interesting to get some concrete information about printer makers’ motivations. Why haven’t they been interviewed by the EFF? UPDATE: someone suggested EU Directive 2014/62. But AFAICT from the wording that directive does not seem to force printer makers to watermark documents.

10
 
 

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/31761131

Cliff’s notes: Team GOP prevailed, the people lost on netneutrality. The only thing you can do now is cancel your broadband.. something very few people have the will power to do.

I suppose the reason they did not take it to the supreme court is Trump managed to stack that court in favor of the right-wing nutjobs. So if the case goes there, it will do the GOP’s bidding to favor big business over the people and enter an oppressive decision that is even harder to correct in the future.

(note this story was originally on Ars Technica but that site is enshitified so I found a less enshitified source to link -- something more fedi posters should do)

11
 
 

I received a notice that my data was leaked in a data breach from a custodian who I did not know had my data in the first place. I had never even heard of them.

One of my financial institutions outsourced to this custodian who was breached. I want to know who I am doing business with that hired the reckless custodian so I can close my account. The custodian ignored my requests for the source of the data.

The attorney general responded saying essentially: out of our purview.. nothing to do here.. we don’t give a shit.

Really? It’s such a perverse assault on data breach victims to deny them information about where the breach came from.

I would like to sue the custodian who is concealing from me the data source. Of course I would like to know if any law was broken, and I find nothing. What am I missing?

12
 
 

The regulator of banks at a state-level responded to reports of legal infringements by a credit union to say: “why don’t you change banks?” Of course the important question here is: “why don’t you enforce the law? Are banks above the law?”

I wanted to find out how many reports of unlawful conduct by banks in the state were reported and how many are acted on. So I requested disclosure of reports and remedies for a specific credit union.

They’re response: investigations and actions taken against banks are secret.

WTF? This is a public regulator. How is this even possible? To be clear, we pay taxes to finance this regulator of banks, yet we are blocked from seeing whether they do their job? And we are blocked from seeing complaints submitted by the public, thus blocked from taking self-defense measures to avoid bad actors?

Would it be sensible to have a non-profit host a searchable website that publishes people’s complaints before forwarding them to the secretive regulator?

13
 
 

A Massachusetts family was once watched for eight months by law enforcement without judicial approval. Federal agents put a camera across the street from the family’s home that ran 24 hours a day. Eventually law enforcement brought drug charges, but the American Civil Liberties Union petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the practice.

14
 
 

A Massachusetts family was once watched for eight months by law enforcement without judicial approval. Federal agents put a camera across the street from the family’s home that ran 24 hours a day. Eventually law enforcement brought drug charges, but the American Civil Liberties Union petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the practice.

15
 
 

A rock star (who shall remain unnamed) told me he wanted to give away his latest work to the public domain. I helped him get the work in open non-proprietary formats.

I told him in principle that Creative Commons licensing would be what he is after, but that it has problems. Creative Commons license text contains links to the creative commons website which then hooks in more licensing terms. There is nothing wrong with the terms but the CC website is jailed in Cloudflare’s walled garden and the URL is part of the licensing text.

I told the artist he would be liberating his work but at the same time he would be technically subjecting users to a bullying US tech giant who makes content arbitrarily exclusive by shutting out some demographics of people and also abusing the privacy of those who are privileged to obtain access to the license text.

I suggested modifying the CC license to remove the CC URL and exclude Cloudflare from being a license gatekeeper, noting of course the big pitfall: if the work is not exactly CC, then it cannot use the CC name, thus the work cannot simply be treated as such by platforms which depend on the easy cookie-cutter CC license. The work cannot simply be copied to a platform that is designed for CC works.

But by rebelling he could perhaps make a splash by casting a spotlight on suppression by Cloudflare. The burden/encumberance of his unique license would trigger a discussion that might get Creative Commons to gain some wisdom and nix the hypocrisy of Cloudflare-dependent licensing.

The artist is a rebel at heart and so he agreed. But I did not act fast. Then he died unexpectedly. All of our discussions were verbal, so his will in this regard is undocumented and thus non-existent from a legal standpoint. I think this means the naturally copyrighted work in question is forever all rights reserved and cannot be liberated, correct?

Or is it a matter of tracking down who in his will inherits the rights to the works in his estate and seeing if they concur with a liberated release?

16
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/27313127

Summary

Chief Justice John Roberts is facing the consequences of the Supreme Court's broad immunity grant to Trump, as the Trump defies judicial orders and undermines the legal system.

In a controversial move, Trump deported Venezuelan immigrants to an El Salvador prison, disregarding a federal judge’s order and claiming immunity under foreign affairs powers.

Roberts issued a rare statement defending judicial independence.

Trump’s efforts to impeach the judge and challenge legal accountability reflect an erosion of democratic norms, prompting urgent concerns over constitutional crises and the rule of law.

17
 
 

The Trump Administration is setting out on a constitutional collision course by impounding funds that Congress has already appropriated.

The question will be: Does the president have the power to halt, delay or not spend money that Congress has appropriated for specific projects or agencies?

Article 1 Sec. 9 Clause 7 gives Congress the power of the purse. Congress has the power to appropriate money. Presidents are to carry out the will of Congress regarding spending.

For clarification, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which provides the president with a mechanics to withhold funding but not cancel it.

However, before delaying or withholding funds, the president must send a “Special Message” to Congress stating the reasons for the impoundment along with an estimate of the fiscal, economic, and budgetary effects.

The bill also says that the president may not withhold Social Security or Medicare funding.

The U.S. Supreme Court also unanimously found in the 1975 Train v. City of New York case that presidents cannot unilaterally withhold or block federal funding.

Yet, with all of this, President Donald Trump, Elon Musk and DOGE are cutting federal funding from a myriad of agencies and projects without Congressional approval or notification.

This is setting up battles in several federal courts.

18
 
 

The abuse of power, the lack of respect for our institutions, the rule by edict ... can those of us opposed to these create coherent rebuttals in the form of constitutional amendments that will address our time of crisis? What will these amendments say?

19
 
 

cross-posted from: https://linkage.ds8.zone/post/341870

I signed an agreement with a creditor that obligates me to pay them using a bank inside the country. This was fine initially but then I moved out of the country and the acct was closed. Other banks will not open an account for me and the creditor refuses cash. So the creditor is treating me like a non-payer to a quite harsh extent.

I have over-simplified here but I just want to know very generally what the common practices are around the world for contract law situations where someone without much bargaining power signs a contract that obligates them to do something that’s only achievable if other 3rd-parties agree to serve them, and then those other 3rd-parties later refuse.

BTW, I am not interested in advice on situational hacks and angles like “find a friend to pay for you”. I want to know how courts treat the situation when all options have failed. Are people typically held accountable for agreeing to something which relied on actions of others?

(the situation is not in the US but I am still interested in answers as to how these kinds of situations are dealt with in the US; of course legal tender is a right the US gives to debtors, but I’m looking for more general legal concepts)

20
 
 

The Lenexa City Council has approved a special permit for a proposed in-home daycare business over the objections of a homeowners association whose bylaws stipulate against it.

On Tuesday, the city council voted 5-2 to approve a special use permit for The Learning Playhouse, 8115 Acuff Ln., an in-home daycare that plans to at least temporarily serve up to 12 children.

Councilmembers Bill Nicks and Mark Charlton voted in dissent. Councllmember Joe Karlin was absent.

The homeowner’s request to open a daycare in her house prompted a vocal protest from the Oak Hill Homes Association, the bylaws for which don’t allow for a business to be run out of a home.

Why did the council need to weigh in?

The Learning Playhouse is owned by Megan Todd, the applicant and owner of the home out of which the daycare will operate.

Todd says her hours will be 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Pick-ups and drop-offs would be staggered to avoid congestion in the neighborhood, according to city documents.

A home is allowed to operate a daycare center for up to six children without needing a special use permit or city council approval, Stephanie Sullivan, planning manager for Lenexa’s Community Development department, said. It would just need a business permit and state license.

Todd has a degree and experience in early childhood education. She told the city council her home has been approved by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to host a daycare and that she has also gotten requisite approvals from city and state fire marshals.

But because Todd planned to serve up to 12 children, she also needed to obtain a special use permit from the city. The owner says the home location will be temporary

Speaking before the city council this week, Todd said her daycare business is only expected to be there until she finds a more permanent place to operate.

“Granting this permit would allow us to save money and attain our goal of moving into a commercial setting and operate as a small child care center rather than an in-home (center),” she said. “Although dependent on factors of location and affordability, we would like to be operating in a commercially zoned location by next school year.”

Todd acknowledged her proposed daycare goes against the HOA’s bylaws, but she said that would be her issue to address with her neighborhood, not the city council’s.

“Any repercussions from the HOA or neighbors would be my responsibility to rectify and not the city’s,” Todd said. “This special use permit granted in a temporary capacity will allow me to earn a respectable living for my family while providing a reliable and necessary service to a few of our Lenexa families.” HOA pushes back on daycare plan

Highlighting the HOA’s rules against running a business out of someone’s home, Steve Chernoff, President of the Oak Hill Homes Association, made his case to the council to deny the permit.

He said he had contacted more than 50 HOAs in Lenexa representing some 10,000 homeowners, all of which gave him “unanimous support” in Oak Hill’s opposition to the plan. He added that other HOA leaders were watching to see what the city would do with this proposal.

“They are a little upset that Lenexa would proceed with foresight and disregard reasonable and legally valid deed restrictions,” he said.” They don’t understand how the city of Lenexa, which has benefited greatly by the existence of these HOAs, would disregard their restrictions.”

Even if the city council granted the special use permit, Chernoff said that does not mean the HOA would not continue to protest the business being run out of the home.

“The applicant is under the impression that approval tonight gives her the final okay to have the business and it trumps the HOA deed restrictions,” he said. “Why would the city of Lenexa allow this to proceed, knowing that the deed restriction in this case is enforceable and require the Oak Hill HOA to spend considerable amount of money in legal proceedings?” City Council said it doesn’t enforce HOA rules

While the city recognizes the HOA has rules and restrictions, city council and staff are not in charge of enforcing them, Sean McLaughlin, Lenexa’s city attorney, said.

“These are private restrictions,” he said. “We do not interpret, follow and enforce those.”

He added, speaking to the city council: “Your role tonight is simply looking at the zoning and looking at what is allowed with this [special use permit].”

In the city’s zoning code for single-family residential neighborhoods, Sullivan said, other allowable uses without a special us permit include places of worship, daycare centers with six children or fewer, group homes, public parks and golf courses.

A special use permit is required for things such as a cemetery, a daycare center with more than six children, large wireless cellular systems, schools, utilities, public safety and commercial uses of residential property.

“I do want to point out, too, in this case, the primary use is still residential,” Sullivan said. “In this case, the homeowner … that’s still living in that house, that’s their primary use of the house. It’s just [the business] would be supplementary.” Two councilmembers voted to deny permit

As the council voiced their thoughts on the project, two cast a critical eye to the project.

The addition of a daycare center in a residential area would change the character of the neighborhood, Nicks said.

Charlton expressed mixed feelings but ultimately voted to deny the special use permit because of the traffic it could bring to the area and the potential dangers it could pose, with the house being on a curve in the road, as well as the driveway having a noticeable incline.

“I understand the safety factor that the neighborhood brought up,” he said. “I noticed that right away, when I drove by the incline of the driveway. I don’t think if I was dropping off my kids, that I’d probably would be driving up the driveway.” The city council approves the permit

Ultimately, the city council approved the permit, with some councilmembers pointing at that the plan was brought before the council merely because of the number of children.

“Had the applicant stayed at six (children) and under, this would not be before us,” Councilmember Chelsea Williamson said. “The city recommending approval of this application with a three-year limit on it, I think allows city staff to monitor it.”

There is a need for child care in the area and this business helps address it, Councilmember Courtney Eiterich said.

“I know that daycare is really hard to find and is much needed, and given that the owners have stipulated that this is temporary — or hopefully temporary — that this could be mitigated a little differently,” she said. “I do not believe that it is our responsibility to navigate the HOA recommendations, and so I will be supporting this.” What’s next

Officials with the Oak Hills Home Association say they are exploring their options, including potentially levying fines against Todd, placing a lien on the house if the fines aren’t paid and restricting her access to the neighborhood pool.

“No one really wants to get involved with things like this, where people are knowingly violating deed restrictions that they agreed to,” Chernoff told the Johnson County Post.

“We have a seven member board, and no one is real happy about having to deal with this.”

Todd could not be reached for additional comment for this story.

21
 
 

This is crazy. Disney is claiming that a wrongful death lawsuit cannot go forward (paraphrasing):

“sorry, your husband signed up to a Disney+ trial a couple of years ago, hence they accepted T&Cs that clearly stated that any dispute about our products should go through arbitration rather than through courts”.

Even if a consumer carefully reads the terms and conditions, how could they reasonably expect the ToS for a video game would affect the terms they are under at a Disney restaurant? That’s fucking nuts.

Future parents: “sorry kids, you cannot play that video game because there is an arbitration clause and one day you might want to visit Disney’s amusement parks.”

I’ve boycotted Disney for over a decade because of how conservative the corp is and how right-wing extremist they are with politics. IIRC Disney financed the campaign of a politician looking to eliminate background checks on firearms. Indeed, the company who entertains kids is happy to fight against basic gun control. So when Disney pulls a dick move like this arbitration clause it just reinforces the idea that boycotting Disney is the right move.

(edit) wow the ups and downs of the votes are interesting. ATM 9 up & 9 down. Can’t help but wonder who are these anti-human people who are happy to lick the corporate boots of Disney.. capitalist fanatics disappointed that people would object to arbitration clauses perversely applied so broadly? I have to wonder if loyal Disney employees are following this thread.

22
 
 

Is there any kind of legal standard of liability when a victim of a data breach suffers from someone exploiting their data? If you are only breached once, obviously it’s easy to point the finger to whoever leaked your data.

But I’ve been hit 3 times now. So all those shitty corps who sloppily handled my data can point the finger to each other. Would a court say the most recent sloppy custodian is responsible if my data is used against me? Or would it be the most reckless custodian? Or would it be equal blame? Or does everyone get off the hook when a victim cannot prove which leak leads to an exploit?

It’s a hypothetical question. Not saying my data was exploited after the breaches, but I wonder about the overall trend. What I’m getting at is there may be little incentive to actually invest in good data security because when a breach happens amid so many other breaches there is perhaps a diffusion responsibility.

23
 
 

A company I have no business relationship with sent me a breach notice stating that criminals got my data. This company is a supplier to many banks, brokerages, insurance companies, etc.

Obviously I want to know which of my banks or insurance companies I am doing business with trusted them with my data. I called and asked. They refused to tell me. But they have made it deliberately complicated. The phone number they gave to breach victims is for a 3rd party call center who knows nothing. So the call center says “we don’t have that info”.

Question: do financial/analytics orgs (or whatever the fuck they are) have a legal obligation to provide data breach victims with the SOURCE of the info? Do they have to tell me which of my banks (or whatever) hired them to be a custodian of my data?

What rights to data breach victims have?

(more background: https://links.hackliberty.org/post/2667522)

(update)
Thanks for all the useful feedback folks! I guess the question that remains is whether there are any federal laws that require the disclosure I am after. I looked up the law for my state here and found no law entitling breach victims to be informed of the source of their personal data. It would help to know the law because the AG, CFPB, and FTC will be limited to the law themselves.

24
 
 

The FCRA requires credit bureaus to disclose to consumers the identity of the sources of information in your credit file. Yet if you look at your credit report from any of the 3 major giants (TRU, EFX, EXPN), they list out all addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses with no indication of who fed them that info. If you request that info, they ignore or refuse.

The penalty for FCRA violations in that section is $1k. So you might think: “how cool is that? I can simply sue all three credit bureaus for $1k each”. It should work like that, but doesn’t. IIRC, it was a lawyer for a credit bureau who told me in so many words: case law shows that you must incur damages in this particular case. So if you can prove damages, then you can claim $1k (even if the actual damages are $1). But how do you even prove $1 in damages?

I have some ideas but generally this is such an uphill battle that credit bureaus can simply bluntly ignore the law. Which is what they do. It’s a good demonstration of how US corporations will plainly break laws that are unenforceable.

25
 
 

According to 15 U.S.C. 7704 §5(a)(5):

INCLUSION OF IDENTIFIER, OPT-OUT, AND PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL.—

(A) It is unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission of any commercial electronic mail message to a protected computer unless the message provides—

(i) clear and conspicuous identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation;
(ii) clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity under paragraph (3) to decline to receive further commercial electronic mail messages from the sender; and
(iii) a valid physical postal address of the sender.

When my text-based mail client receives an HTML-only email message, it tries to render the HTML as text. It’s sometimes a jumbled up unreadable heap of garbage because the HTML is malformed and relies on a forgiving/tolerant rendering engine. Even when the HTML is well formed, hyperlinks are not exposed in the text rendered. E.g. a msg will say “to unsubscribe and stop receiving emails, update preferences here.”

Where is “here”? That is just raw text to me. Sure, an advanced user can do a number of things to dig up that link. But I doubt that would pass the legal standard of “clear and conspicuous”.

Anyone have confidence either way whether HTML-only spam is legally actionable on this basis?

(update) I should mention the most annoying offenders-- corporate senders (e.g. banks) that attach a plaintext MIME part, but then the motherfuckers use it to just say (in so many words) “You need to update your software”. This makes it extra difficult to see the content of the message because the text mail client of course shows the text MIME part by default.

view more: next ›